The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2. J ...Appellants/petitioners lPjIlC,.r-"p by it's M.D & V.C., Musheerabad; R T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad P.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Nagaiah, ,rjor, ' O"",-b*n"r. of Bus bearino No.Ap- 1 w-7641, Rio. ri. r,ro. i o_i- ruu;;; "M 1r,iirr."ir,lr"i, "dil#X "guO District. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, D.No.6-3_87.1, "Snehalatha above Watclen,' Green lands n.irO, 'A.Lr;pet, (2nd respondent is not necessary to this Appeal) Hyderabad. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Mrs..T..Kanya Kumari, representing

Mr. Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr. Anjaiah Kandula, Standing Counsel The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT 7 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL No.548 OF 2013 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2013 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2013 in O.P.No.76 of 2O 10 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-lll Aclditional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad (for short 'the Tribunal)

2. Heard Mrs. T.Kanya Kumari, learned counsel, representing Mr. Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel for appellants, and Mr. Anjaiah Kandula, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company'

3. I.A.No.S2 of 2O).3 lr'as filed by appellants/petitioners under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 15 1 of CPC for restoration of O.P.No.76 of 20 10 setting aside the dismissal order dated 20.12.2012. Tribunal by order, dated I5.O2.2O13, in I.A.No.S2 of 2013 in O.P.No.76 of 2OlO, passed the following order: "On clear pentsal of the Docket order gross neqliqence found on the petitioner counsel by non-represented the 2 JAK, J C.M.A.No548 2013 matter before the Court number of times. Hence this petition is dismissed. "

4. I.A.No.52 of 2013 was filed on 07.01.2013 i.e., within three weeks from the date of dismissal order, 1n spite of which, Tribunal passeci order dated 15.02.2013, without asslgnlng any reasons

5. The affidavit filed by appellants/petitioners in I.A.No.52 of 2013 is as follows: "2. That, the aboue O.P uas last posted on 20.12.2012 for tial finallu and on that dag the same utas informed to me bg mg counsel to present at Asifabad to adduce euidence on our behalf, but since tLrcir u-lzs moriaqe in our blood related famila I infonned our counsel that I could not attend the court on th-e aboue mentioned date and requested mtl counsel to seek a short adiournment and in turn our aduocote on record requested his counterpart aduocate at Asifabad to represent the case and seek o short adioumment and by the time he reacLrcd the Hon'ble Court after attendinq uork in a anotLter coutl in tLLe same building and bu the time he reached this Hon'ble Court, the Hon'ble Court was dismiss the O.P' .for default as there tlcts no representation on behalf of the p"tition rt as u-tell as their counsel on record' That, about tu)o dags back I met mg counsel at Adilabad. and came to knou.t tlrut the oboue O.P. utas di'smissed for default on 2O.12.2O12, and the same u)as infonned to me bu our counsel and filino present applicant for Restoration of the aboue O.P. tuithout the delay' That, the absence of the petitioners as utell as 3. their counsel on 2O.12.2O12 utas neither willful nor wanton but for th.e rert son slated supra. It is furtter submitted that the petitioners houe uery qood case to defend and fare chances o.;[ success in case the oboue iI I ; I I I I ) ,IAK J C.lvI.A.No.548 -2013 O.P. is not restored- to its oiqinal number the petitioner u)ill be put to heauy hardship and ifteparable loss'" It is a case of d.eath of a Coolie (one Shaik Amul 6. Haman), accident occurred on 04 i 1'2008 at about 10:00 A.M., near Hi-Tech City, Gate Mancherial' He was treated at Government Area Hospital, Mancherial' and while undergoing treatment, he d'ied lncome of the deceased claimed as Rs.15O/- per day. Compensation of Rs 6'00'000/- is claimed by applicants i.e , wife (petitioner No' 1) and children (petitioner Nos'2 to 6) of deceased'

7. Order, dated 15.02.2013, is bereft of reasons O'P' is of the year 2010. Not an iota of consideration of the grounds in a,ffidavit are reflected in the order' I A No'52 of 2013 u,as filed in January, 2013, dismissed in February' 2013' C.M.A. is filed in June, 2013 C M A was not listed frequently after filing in 20 13. For the lapses on the part of the counsel, O.P.No.76 of 2010 was dismissed on 20'12'2OL2' Furthermore, this appeal is listed before this Court in 2025' 8 This Court does not find any reason to accede to the contentions made by the learned Standing Counsel 1 JAK, J C.M A.No J18 2013 appear-lng on behalf of respondent No.3_Insurance Company, opposing the C.M.A. It is a case of death, matter is listed after 11 long years. This Court deems it appropriate to allorv the appeal subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/_ by appellants to respondent No.3_Insurarce Company, in the interests of justice.

9. Needless to state that on filing of proof of payment of costs before the Tribunai with a Memo/application to restore O.P.No.76 of 2OlO, the same shall be restored to the file of Tribunal and O.p. shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible 1 O. At this juncture, learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company submitted that interest part on the compensation aw.arded, to be deposited, in the event of o.p. being decided in favour of the applicants, the Insurance Company should not be directed to pay interest as CM.A., is frled on 3O.O4.2013 and is dispos ed on 22.06.2025. That the period frorn 30.04.2013 to 22.06.2025 should be excluded for levy of interest, as the matter was pending consideration before this Court. The said contention is valid, this Court f JSA, J a \t .1 \o.i46 2alJ directs the Tribunal not to award interest for the period which the C.M.A., is pending before this Court' C'M'A' was filed on 30.04.2013 and disposed of on 27.06'2025' This period shall be excluded for lel'y of interest, on the compensation, if any, awarded to applicants of the deceased' 1 1. For reasons aforesaid, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 15.O2.2013 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2013 in O.P.No.76 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ill Additional District Judge (FTC), Asifabad, on payment of costs of Rs.5,OO0/- (Rupees five thousand only) by the appellalts to respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand ciosed. SD/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR .l I \ //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To, l.ThelllAdditionalDistrictJUdge(FTC),Asifabad(withrecords,ifany) 2. One CC to Mr. Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr Anjaiah Kandula, Standing Counsel IOPUC] ^ I l,W 4. Two CD CoPies Y Kam,/PSL .e5 -/i---:::'\ i'- iFi'r sinl- jji- t\ (' 15 sEP 2025 * - ',/ . a// ./ HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ..,' .: l, .,| JUDGMENT CMA.No.548 of 2013 ALLOWING THE CMA 1 q